Don't strip cities of ability to regulate drones

Californians cherish their private backyard patios, swimming pools and other places to enjoy the outdoors in solitude and seclusion. Unfortunately, that solitude and seclusion is increasingly under threat due to the growing number of camera-equipped drones buzzing through California neighborhoods, sometimes crashing on city sidewalks. And now, cities’ ability to combat this threat could also be in jeopardy: Some legislators in Sacramento, prompted by lobbyists, seem bent on stripping municipalities of all authority to regulate drone activities at the local level.

State governments can certainly play important roles in helping to regulate drone-related conflicts. For instance, a California statute enacted in late 2015 to curb the paparazzis’ use of drones gives citizens some valuable privacy protections. The Federal Aviation Administration is also well-positioned to handle broad aspects of drone-related safety, such as flights near airports.

However, as useful as California’s drone laws and the current set of federal drone laws may be, they leave behind some large regulatory gaps that will be difficult to effectively fill without the involvement of cities, counties and towns. For nearly a century, municipalities – not states or federal governments – have been the primary regulators of numerous inherently local activities, from land development to biking, to parades and political rallies. Municipalities’ firsthand information and responsiveness to their own communities makes them uniquely well-suited to locally regulate these sorts of things.

As such, municipalities are increasingly seeking to regulate drone activities as well. Los Angeles, West Hollywood and Beverly Hills are just some of the cities that have recently adopted local drone use ordinances.

Unfortunately, California cities’ involvement in drone regulation could soon come to an abrupt end. Drone industry stakeholders have been hovering around the state Capitol in Sacramento for months, lobbying hard for statutory provisions that would pre-empt and invalidate all local drone laws. Advocates for these provisions argue that pre-emption is necessary to prevent what they characterize as a “patchwork quilt” of local laws that would be costly and difficult for drone operators to follow. These lobbyists’ efforts almost succeeded earlier this year when a sweeping pre-emption provision suddenly appeared in a pending drone bill, AB2320. The pre-emption provision was, fortunately, stricken, but this push for pre-emption is likely to resurface again.

Allowing for some local variation in drone laws does not create a “patchwork quilt” that is any more troublesome than the diverse sets of local ordinances governing bicyclists, landscapers or roof inspectors. Few automobile drivers have difficulties adjusting to locally posted speed limits or other local traffic rules. And contractors routinely comply with city-specific laws when building land development projects. Why couldn’t drone operators likewise comply with drone restrictions that varied from city to city?

Inviting local governments to help regulate where and when drones may fly within their boundaries promotes policy innovation and enables cities to contribute to the development of more efficient drone regulatory systems.

The most promising way to protect Californians’ peace and privacy, and yet facilitate the state’s smooth integration of drone technologies, is not through enacting broad-brush state drone laws and broadly pre-empting local authority. It is through developing a thoughtfully coordinated drone regulatory structure that features meaningful roles for the state and for local governments. Municipal officials need to broadcast this message in Sacramento before their ability to protect their citizens from unwanted drones flies away.

Troy Rule is a law professor at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law.

WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Letters to the Editor: E-mail to letters@ocregister.com.
Please provide your name, city and telephone number (telephone numbers will not be published).
Letters of about 200 words or videos of 30-seconds
each will be given preference. Letters will be edited for length, grammar and clarity.

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.